So when it says creature, it really means object? That’s a very big distinction.
EDIT: that came out snarkier than I intended. It is interesting that the spell description completely skirts the issue by avoiding any reference to a corpse (while as you point out it obviously implies)
But we have split hairs far finer than this in this subforum. As written, I suggest it meets all the criteria for a spell to be twinned.
Well the rules say a dead body is an object. That much isn't in doubt. And it's explicitly saying you're bringing someone back who died - because if they weren't dead you wouldn't be using the spell. That it says creature in the spell is incongruous with the rest of the rules.
But hey - it's not like this isn't the only instance of poor wording in the rules.
So when it says creature, it really means object? That’s a very big distinction.
When it says "a dead creature" or "a creature that has been dead for...", those two elements combine as entity and modifier to produce a new entity. Specifically [creature] plus [dead] equals [object]
[creature] = [creature]
[creature] + [dead] = [object]
A spell such as revivify specifies [creature] + [dead] (that is also considered [object]) because if it just specified an [object] that had died, it'd ostensibly be more confusing (Can a teacup die? Can you resurrect a plate?)
It's one of the more confusing niches of the rules, for certain.
So when it says creature, it really means object? That’s a very big distinction.
When it says "a dead creature" or "a creature that has been dead for...", those two elements combine as entity and modifier to produce a new entity. Specifically [creature] plus [dead] equals [object]
[creature] = [creature]
[creature] + [dead] = [object]
A spell such as revivify specifies [creature] + [dead] (that is also considered [object]) because if it just specified an [object] that had died, it'd ostensibly be more confusing (Can a teacup die? Can you resurrect a plate?)
It's one of the more confusing niches of the rules, for certain.
If it said “a corpse,” I’d agree with you. But a dead creature is obviously a creature. It’s right there in the name.
Not to get philosophical, but I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with an interpretation stating that a corpse (object) and dead creature (creature) have the same physical being but are nevertheless conceptually distinct. When you cast True Resurrection, you’re targeting the creature and not the corpse. If you pick it up and swing it as an improvised weapon, you’re interacting with the corpse and not the creature. Catholicism, the RPG.
I appreciate the detail you are going into, and I am not being obtuse. I take your point and I understand your explanation.
Respectfully, whether or not the implication is that you are touching an object, the spell's description explicitly meets all criteria for it being twinnable. If we are going support our position by referencing the wording of fire bolt and preventing me from twinning it even if I am specifically targeting two creatures, then surely the written words for true resurrection must carry at least as much weight in this case. In summary, I suppose I am suggesting that explicit RAW trumps implied RAW, which you may or may not agree with. I have asked JC about the RAI of this situation, but I'm not holding my breath for a reply.
Have to say that I don't get this discussion. Not at all tbh.
I get that Twinned Spell has strict language about "creature" but True Resurrection also specifies "creature" (in 7 places no less). So if a dead creature no longer is a creature to qualify for Twinned Spell then it doesn't qualify for True Resurrection either and True Resurrection becomes a dead spell instead of a life giving one. And that is just insanity IMO.
Have to say that I don't get this discussion. Not at all tbh.
I get that Twinned Spell has strict language about "creature" but True Resurrection also specifies "creature" (in 7 places no less). So if a dead creature no longer is a creature to qualify for Twinned Spell then it doesn't qualify for True Resurrection either and True Resurrection becomes a dead spell instead of a life giving one. And that is just insanity IMO.
Sounds like you get the this discussion completely.
Wow this blew up. RAW of the spell says “creature”. “Creature” has a specific usage and meaning and a number of mechanics are based off of that word, including Twinned Spell. RAW, it works....RAI it might not, but they had at least 7 different opportunities to use a different word and they didn’t...so that’s on them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So when it says creature, it really means object? That’s a very big distinction.
EDIT: that came out snarkier than I intended. It is interesting that the spell description completely skirts the issue by avoiding any reference to a corpse (while as you point out it obviously implies)
But we have split hairs far finer than this in this subforum. As written, I suggest it meets all the criteria for a spell to be twinned.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Well the rules say a dead body is an object. That much isn't in doubt. And it's explicitly saying you're bringing someone back who died - because if they weren't dead you wouldn't be using the spell.
That it says creature in the spell is incongruous with the rest of the rules.
But hey - it's not like this isn't the only instance of poor wording in the rules.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
When it says "a dead creature" or "a creature that has been dead for...", those two elements combine as entity and modifier to produce a new entity. Specifically [creature] plus [dead] equals [object]
[creature] = [creature]
[creature] + [dead] = [object]
A spell such as revivify specifies [creature] + [dead] (that is also considered [object]) because if it just specified an [object] that had died, it'd ostensibly be more confusing (Can a teacup die? Can you resurrect a plate?)
It's one of the more confusing niches of the rules, for certain.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
If it said “a corpse,” I’d agree with you. But a dead creature is obviously a creature. It’s right there in the name.
Not to get philosophical, but I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with an interpretation stating that a corpse (object) and dead creature (creature) have the same physical being but are nevertheless conceptually distinct. When you cast True Resurrection, you’re targeting the creature and not the corpse. If you pick it up and swing it as an improvised weapon, you’re interacting with the corpse and not the creature. Catholicism, the RPG.
I appreciate the detail you are going into, and I am not being obtuse. I take your point and I understand your explanation.
Respectfully, whether or not the implication is that you are touching an object, the spell's description explicitly meets all criteria for it being twinnable. If we are going support our position by referencing the wording of fire bolt and preventing me from twinning it even if I am specifically targeting two creatures, then surely the written words for true resurrection must carry at least as much weight in this case. In summary, I suppose I am suggesting that explicit RAW trumps implied RAW, which you may or may not agree with. I have asked JC about the RAI of this situation, but I'm not holding my breath for a reply.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Have to say that I don't get this discussion. Not at all tbh.
I get that Twinned Spell has strict language about "creature" but True Resurrection also specifies "creature" (in 7 places no less). So if a dead creature no longer is a creature to qualify for Twinned Spell then it doesn't qualify for True Resurrection either and True Resurrection becomes a dead spell instead of a life giving one. And that is just insanity IMO.
Sounds like you get the this discussion completely.
Wow this blew up. RAW of the spell says “creature”. “Creature” has a specific usage and meaning and a number of mechanics are based off of that word, including Twinned Spell. RAW, it works....RAI it might not, but they had at least 7 different opportunities to use a different word and they didn’t...so that’s on them.